|
Response |
How it Works |
Works Best If... |
Considerations |
Research |
||
|
Increasing Visibility for Passengers |
||||||
|
Improving lighting |
Passengers perceive they are better able to recognise potentially dangerous situations |
…lighting improvements are combined with surfaces that enhance the effect of lighting (e.g. bright tiles, bright paint) |
The positioning of some lights may impede visibility (e.g. glare) Some lighting may create shadows that decrease visibility
|
|
||
|
Increasing visibility through design (e.g. by minimising nooks or recesses, by introducing passageway mirrors) |
Passengers perceive they are better able to recognise potentially dangerous situations |
Felson, Belanger, Bichler, Bruzinski, Campbell, Fried, Grofik, Mazur, O'Regan, Sweeney, Ullman and Williams (1996) reported that the introduction of a range of design measures (in combination with a number of management and policing practices) appeared to have a significant impact upon passengers’ feelings of security when using the station |
||||
|
Increasing Perceived Levels of Assistance for Passengers |
||||||
|
Increasing passenger density e.g. by reducing the number of carriages or blocking off unused parts of stations |
Passengers may believe that offenders may be deterred by the presence of other passengers or that other passengers may be willing to provide assistance |
|
Increasing passenger density may increase some types of interactions between passengers |
|
||
|
Increasing surveillance by personnel e.g. police, security officers, employees, transport wardens |
Passengers may believe that offenders will be deterred by the presence of personnel or that personnel may be willing to provide assistance |
…(1) they are highly visible …(2) their presence is well publicised to passengers |
Increasing the presence of staff is commonly regarded as most desirable or potentially most effective by passengers |
van Andel (1992) reported on the introduction of transport wardens on vehicles and at stations in three cities in the Netherlands. The author reported that feelings of insecurity on the system had decreased only marginally following their introduction, and concluded that feelings of insecurity were also likely to influenced by a number of other social factors. |
||
|
Increasing CCTV surveillance
|
Passengers may believe that the presence of CCTV may deter crimes or that CCTV may enable personnel to assist them |
…(1) cameras are highly visible …(2) the presence of CCTV is well publicised to passengers |
Passengers may be sceptical about the monitoring of CCTV systems and therefore, increased CCTV surveillance may be of only limited benefit |
Crime Concern and Transport & Travel Research (1997) Trench, Oc and Tiesdell (1992) |
||
|
Increasing communication opportunities for passengers e.g. by installing emergency phones, help points, passenger alarms, passenger intercoms |
The presence of these communication systems may reassure passengers that help can be summoned if an incident occurs |
…(1) they are perceived as accessible by passengers …(2) passengers feel they can legitimately use these systems …(2) their presence is well publicised to passengers |
These mechanisms may be misused or vandalised |
Webb and Laycock (1992) reported on the introduction of passenger alarm points, supervised waiting areas and passageway mirrors at six stations on the London Underground. An information point was also introduced at one station. Household surveys of station users revealed little evidence for a significant change in feelings and attitudes when using the stations. One conclusion of the study was the important need to publicise the introduction of the security measures. |
||
|
Increasing surveillance by retailers |
Passengers may believe that offenders may be deterred by the presence of retailers or that retailers and their customers may provide assistance if an incident occurs |
…the potential surveillance provided by retailers is maximised e.g. no posters covering windows, positioned centrally |
Some types of businesses may contribute negatively to the environment e.g. fast food shops may produce litter
|
|
||
|
Reducing Uncertainty for Passengers |
||||||
|
Providing up-to-date service information for passengers |
(1) Keeping passengers informed may reduce worry (2) may assist passengers to spend greater time in locations perceived as secure |
…(1) service information is accurate …(2) information provided in secure locations |
||||
|
Providing clear signage and maps at facilities
|
May allow passengers to focus on surroundings and therefore, cause them to feel more confident and less fearful |
|||||
|
Reducing the Impact of Victimisation |
||||||
|
Providing victims with counselling
|
As research suggests direct victimisation has an impact upon feelings of safety, working with victims may assist to reduce their levels of fear and the impact of their experience on others |
|
||||
|
Working with the local media
|
Building a relationship with the local media may assist to minimise the amount of media coverage that may contribute to fear |
|
Some commentators have noted the tendency for the media to sensationalise incidents occurring on public transport, and to report incidents as occurring at stations when in fact they only occurred in the wider vicinity of the station |
Wilson and Healy (1986) suggested discouraging publicity about graffiti and artists and maintaining a clear distinction between vandalism and violent incidents occurring on the system. The purpose of these measures was to reduce rewards for graffiti offenders (i.e. recognition) and to alleviate fears of riders by demonstrating that graffiti and violence are not the same. |
||
|
Increasing Perceived Care and Control |
||||||
|
Maintaining a clean and attractive environment e.g. removal of graffiti and repair of damage, removal of litter |
The presence of a disordered or unclean environment may indicate to passengers that there is a lack of care or control by authorities |
…systems are in place to efficiently identify areas needing cleaning or maintenance |
|
|||
|
Discouraging disorderly, or rowdy persons from loitering at facilities
|
(1) Removes disorderly or seemingly uncontrolled persons, the presence of which may cause passengers to perceive a lack of control by authorities (2) Removes persons that may be more likely to commit crime or anti-social behaviour |
|
A range of response may be used, including making sitting uncomfortable for illegitimate users, putting homeless persons in contact with social services, and by excluding persons from facilities |
Felson et al. (1996) reported on a range of design and management measures introduced at the Port Authority Bus Terminal to discourage disorderly persons from living at and frequenting the terminal. |
||
|
Adopting order maintenance policing approaches on systems i.e. stepped up policing of disorder or incivilities |
Policing low level offences argued to communicate message of control to passengers and offenders |
|
Resource intensive response and little known about the mechanisms by which this strategy works |
Smith and Clarke (2000) discuss the rationale and evidence for this style of policing in the public transport environment (see also the section Order Maintenance Policing in Part 2 of the Toolkit). |
||
|
Other Responses |
||||||
|
Publicising the actual risks of victimisation through media or through posters at stations |
Intended to persuade passengers that the risk of victimisation is lower than perceived |
A large proportion of passengers are likely to be sceptical of official statistics |
Benjamin et al (1994)
|
|||